Why Liberals Want to Destroy the Middle Class

Why would the liberals in government want to destroy the middle class in America? At first glance that seems just plain stupid and without reason. However, at second glance it actually makes sense from their perspective. What happens when you destroy the middle class in a modern society? You end up with a small, but extremely wealthy elite and a massive, dependent lower class.

That Lower class is dependent because you have destroyed all or most of the jobs with decent wages by sending them over seas or importing workers that can be trained to do them for less money. A lot less. That lower class is now dependent on the government to provide. That means PROVIDE. Food, clothing, shelter and the occasional ‘luxury’ item. By luxury, in this context, I mean a movie or a couple extra cases of beer. And of course drugs, like marijuana, to keep the masses content.

Of course you need to dumb down the people and put them in a position where they cannot compete in the world market any more. Institute things like control of school curriculum and being sure to teach those things that will make them even more non competitive. How about we change the way math is done? Change the actual working in math into a method that is incomprehensible to the rest of the world! That will work! Then we need to get rid of the arts. Remove band and choir from all secondary schools. See to it that the schools done have the finances to fund art and music. Be sure to change the way and the content of history classes. Divide the country into cultural divisions with their own language so they can’t communicate with each other. This will cut down on the possibility of beneficial cultural exchanges. Keep the people from realizing what is happening to their country.

The result is you have a wealthy class that pays all of the bills, and of course you borrow until no one will accept your credit any more. Now you have a mass of people so dumbed down and trained to be lazy so they continue to vote for the ones with the handouts. This way the liberals have a strangle hold on power AND wealth. What more could anyone ask for?

Now, how do you get all of this power? Well, you organize the votes. Now I didn’t say voters, because that just might not work. You have to have people vote using the names of dead people that haven’t been removed from the rolls. You use threats of violence to prevent people from voting so you have entire counties that don’t have any opposition votes to count. Yeah, I know this is already happening. Pennsylvania in the last election is but one shining example. There are many others from the last two elections. Of course you must demonize any thought of requiring proof of citizenship via honest voter identification. This is essential. If you can get this done then all of the people you allow to break the laws of the land and enter this country illegally vote, illegally, the way you tell or pay them.

The tyrannical leaders of the house and senate have the ability to prevent any bill from reaching the floor for open debate that they fear will or could limit the speed with which their goals are achieved. If they can do these things then they can shrug off an executive branch that ignores both the congress and the constitution. The can then break or create any laws they so desire and spend more days on the golf links than many professionals while doing it.

There is more to this such as the Muslim jihad, the roll of ISIS and sharia law, but we will discuss those in another blog.


Article V Convention – What and Why?

I am going to attempt to answer a bunch of questions I keep getting about the upcoming Article V Convention popularly known as the Convention of States. I will do this by referencing the Federalist Papers a lot. Why? The Federalist (they weren’t called the Federalist PAPERS until the twentieth century) was written by three of the founding fathers – James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay – to explain the thinking of those founders when they dreamed up that radical document we call The Constitution of the United States and trust me, at the time it was indeed a ‘radical’ document. It is a group of 85 documents that explain the intent of the constitution.
This new Constitution was an experiment in government that gave the people the power. Those six pages were the first time an attempt was ever made to give the people of a nation the power to decide their own destiny. The writers of that document were intelligent. So intelligent that they knew they would not, could not, foresee all eventualities. So they included several ways to modify it so the people would have a defense against tyranny in government. Article V of that document gives us two of them. We will be looking at the one given directly to the people and that is what the Convention of States is founded upon.
Let’s begin by examining the opening paragraphs of The Federalist: “It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”
Let us be very clear here. An Article V convention is NOT a Constitutional Convention. A constitutional Convention is called to write a new and overriding constitution. An Article V Convention is called only to amend the current convention and the one that is now being proposed has some very strict limitations on even that. The Federalist made it very clear that the PEOPLE had the power not the government. In point of fact the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. However it must be remembered that is was written by honorable people and honorable people have a blind spot where dishonorable people are concerned. They simply can’t envision the lengths some people will go to to obtain and maintain power. So they didn’t adequately provide for a defense against the power hungry. When they set up the government they divided the powers along strict lines that have become blurred, indeed, even non-existent. They foresaw a government by gentlemen who would serve in the government for a term and go back to their homes and families and jobs. They could not conceive of anyone making politics a career of all things.
So one of the limited and stated intents of this Article V convention is to limit the terms of ALL federally elected officials and many appointed ones.
Another of the stated goals is to limit the POWER of the federal government. The Constitution clearly gave the greater power to the states. The federal government was formed to protect that and allow for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. To provide for the common defense of the nation, to regulate interstate commerce (never intrastate) among others. Actually it was designed to follow the Declaration of Independence by codifying it into the supreme law of the land. Yep, both the Constitution and the Federalist are quite emphatic on this point, but that is another blog.
Perhaps it would clarify some of these points if I quoted from an article by one of the founders of the project, Michael Farris: “Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.
A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.
What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?
The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:
A balanced budget amendment
A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.
The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.”

As my regular readers know I try to limit these treatises to 1000 words so I don’t lose those with limited time and/or attentions spans so I will follow this in a day or two with part two.
As always comments, questions, suggestions and complaints are both requested and welcomed.

The Real Conservative Goal

I recently had a conversation with a highly paid political consultant.

One of the things we discussed was the primary goal of all conservatives in this mid term election. He has found that among those who are honest with themselves and realistic in their goals, the real effort of this election should be to rid the country of the yoke of one man. No, not the president, he is not up for election, though there may be discussions about his future AFTER the election. So who could be the one man that we really need to retire from office? The senate Majority Leader and aspiring tyrant, Harry Reid.

How can we do that, you ask? It is so simple many forget to even consider it. Elect republicans to the senate. It really is that simple. If the republicans are the majority party in the senate they get to say who will be the majority leader and that person will have the dictatorial powers that Reid currently uses so effectively. So does your state have a republican running for the senate that has some acne distracting from their conservative skin? We have one of those in my state of West Virginia. Shelly Moore Capito. There are many people in this state that I would rather see representing me in the United States Senate. BUT … She is a republican. Always has been. I don’t agree with her policies much of the time; however, I will vote for her.

Why? Well actually there are three reasons. The primary one is the fact that she will be seated as a REPUBLICAN. Regardless of how she handles that seat, she will put us one step closer to getting rid of Harry Reid. The second is the fact that her opponent would be a total disaster for our state while the third is the fact that the only other choice is a candidate who has about as much chance of being elected as my winning that ten million from Publishers Clearing House. A vote for him would be such a waste of time and effort. It wouldn’t even be seen as a political statement of any significance.

The fact that a republican may be a full blown RINO is NOT a reason to vote against them in THIS election. Once we have control of the senate we can handle the RINOs at a later date. We must add to the list of reason for taking control of the senate it significantly increases the possibility of a successful impeachment process for the president and certainly for the extremely racist Attorney General.

This country desperately needs to restore the separation of powers the Constitution set forth. An idea that is completely ignored by Harry Reid and the democrats. We begin that process by having a Republican dominated senate. Perhaps we can even convince them that no one person should have control over what bills should actually face debate on the floor of either house.


As usual; comments are encouraged and actively sought.

The Purpose of this Blog


I thought I would remind you all of this post. This is one way to improve your ‘presence’ and your platform. How about a post about the thought or experience or whatever it was that set you to thinking about the book, story, poem that you wrote or are writing or trying to write. or maybe you have some questions or advice from what you have learned on your journey to write that perfect piece. You know the one you keep searching for but not quite finding? Use this blog for these things, if you wish.

Originally posted on Writing Discussions for Fiction Writers:

I have the hope that this will become am avenue for writers to discuss their work and the problems they are facing as well as helping each other over the hurdles we face. Hopefully both novice and and established authors will be the contributors. It is open for critiques, writing samples, advice, even editors, agents and publishers.

Should you want to contribute please leave a comment with your contribution. If that doesn’t give you enough room just send me an email at dukea98@gmail.com and use new blog post in the subject. Also PLEASE make sure you have used your spell checker and read your post prior to submitting to eliminate embarrassing typos.

My next post will be a sample of my own writing and some comments on what I was attempting to accomplish. I ask, nay, pray for comments and critiques.

View original

A Look at Obamacare

Obamacare: Fact vs Fiction

This blog was suggested by a form letter from a United States Senator that contained so many lies, misconceptions and misleading statements that I felt someone had to respond. I guess I am that someone. The form letter came from that paragon of Alzheimer’s, Senator Rockefeller (D)WV. I guess I should show you the letter in its entirety:

Dear ******,
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the repeal of the health care reform law. I know there are a lot of questions about this new law, and I appreciate this opportunity to be in touch.
In March 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive health reform legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care, and stop health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with per-existing health conditions. The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage to their employees, makes prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and beginning in 2014, provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Additionally, the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.
My vote for comprehensive health reform came after years and years of listening to West Virginians who could not afford the health care they needed – with devastating health and financial consequences.  I truly believe that no state has more to gain from health reform than West Virginia, and I will continue to closely monitor its implementation and make it work for our state and our people.
Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the House of Representatives has voted to repeal it completely, or in part, more than 30 times – while offering no alternative plan. These efforts were continued in the Senate by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. On February 2, 2011, Minority Leader McConnell brought the repeal vote to the Senate floor through an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act (S. 223). The health reform repeal vote in the Senate failed by a vote 47 to 51. I voted against the McConnell amendment.
The health reform law is not perfect – no law is – and it does not address every concern. We can and must monitor health care reform carefully, listen to American families and businesses, and fix whatever doesn’t work. But wholesale repeal of health care reform would take away important benefits for West Virginians.
According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, repealing the health reform law would add $109 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while keeping it in place would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. Repeal would reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years, making it insolvent by 2016. Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients. The stakes are too high – for every patient, for every family, for every business struggling with health care costs – not to move forward.
I have attached a fact sheet for your reference on what repeal of the health care law would mean for West Virginians. To learn more about the new health reform law, please visit http://www.healthcare.gov.  If you do not have a computer in your home, you may access the Internet at your local public library, free of charge.
As we continue implementation of this new law, your views and experiences will be critically important to me. Thank you again for contacting me. I wish you the very best.
With Warm Regards,
Jay Rockefeller
I will attempt to address each of the highlighted areas with both my own thoughts and those of officials both in and outside the beltway.
The first of these: ”legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care “ Let me tell you of some friends of mine that live a good life on the shores of Lake Erie in Ohio. Once Obamacare was passed their insurance tripled! Tripled! Two people, no children and their insurance premiums tripled! Obama and the Democrats promised that insurance rates for the average American family would decrease by $2500.00 when in fact, according to the GAO those same families are facing an average increase of $2585.00 per year. More of an increase than the promised decrease was supposed to be. Then there are the over three million Americans whose insurance has been canceled, including an estimated 10,500 right in the Senator’s home state of West Virginia. I personally have had three physicians refuse to accept medicare and medicaid because of the new regulations. Yet this man has the audacity to claim it “will reduce health care costs,improve access to care.” He doesn’t seem to live in the same world I do.
Next: provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Yes, there is a provision to grant tax credit to certain FEW that qualify. One thing though – the tax credit does not cover the increased costs they are facing. And then there are all of the people that simply don’t qualify for the tax credits, but do qualify for the fee of “the greater of $750.00 or 2% of their income” starting in 2014 if you do not sign up for Obamacare. And as we know, many people simply can’t sign up. A decent living wage in these times might be $50,000. 2% of that is $1,000.00 so there aren’t many that would be charged only $750.00 and those that are, certainly can’t afford to pay it, yet the cost of insurance under this law is even more with the so called tax credits.
Now about that “competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace” – we have all seen the news about the vast number of insurance companies that are refusing to enter it. Note the 3 plus million canceled policies. Competitive marketplace indeed. The new law is designed to create a SINGLE PAYOR health care. This is already being seen by the number of insurance companies that will no longer be allowed to provide the medigap coverage. Only the largest will be doing that from this point on.
Next: “the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. “ This one is, at least in part, true. It is done in a very simple manner. They gutted medicare. It has nothing to do with Obamacare other than as a way to slow the deficit created by it. Know anybody on SSI? They are having their benefits cut over the next few years to help pay for Obamacare. Remember the fact that medicare benefits have decreased already. Well, unless you are an illegal alien.
Next: “According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.”
The first point here is the reference to the so called “independent Congressional Budget Office is the budget office congresspeople like to site when the Government Accounting Office (GAO) doesn’t give the information the way they want it. Remember the old adage that figures don’t lie but liars figure? The GAO takes into account more of the actual costs of implementing and maintaining the AFA and they are estimating that the budget will increase by somewhere in the neighborhood of one trillion dollars over the next ten years because of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. Reduce the deficit indeed.
Next: Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.
There four parts to this one. The first regards seniors drug costs. Yep they would go up! About double! And that is an example of liars figuring. The cost for a generic prescription would, possibly, go from $2.00 to $4.00. True statement. I am on medicare and have the requisite prescription coverage and my costs are accurately reflected in the above statement.
The second is the denying of health care to sick people. Under Obamacare more people are denied health care than ever before. Just take a glance at your local news show every day. (If it isn’t one of the mainstream liberal stations. They tend to ignore all negative Obamacare news.) Then there is the provision in Obamacare that states that the decisions of the Review Board shall consider the Quantity of Life over the Quality of Life. Which, simply stated, means that if you are around 70 you can and will be denied expensive health care because, what the heck, you aren’t going to be around all that much longer so who cares? The you must remember that that review board will be composed of politicians or their sycophants.
Third is tax breaks for small businesses. This one sounds like the used car dealer that raises his prices then puts the cars on sale. Let’s see now… how many new taxes did Obamacare create? I lost count around a dozen so I don’t really have an answer for you, but I have a hunch that if Obamacare were repealed we would all save on taxes, not just small businesses.
The last is putting health care decisions in the hands of insurance companies. OK. Some HMOs were guilty of this one for a while, but soon learned that was not a profitable way to do business. The attorneys and all those law suits might have had something to do with it. All of the ills with the old health care could be fixed with two new laws. Insurance companies have no power to make health decisions for its clients by denying coverage for medically necessary procedures and they must grant coverage for pre-existing conditions. This last would cause a slight rise in rates, but spread over all of the insured that rise should be relatively painless, unlike the rate increases caused by Obamacare. Remember those two laws I suggested, some states already have them, would put the decisions in the hands, of all people, your Doctor! What a novel idea.

Defining Liberal and Conservative

What IS a Conservative? Or a Liberal?

I am going to share a Couple of dictionary definitions of both Liberal and Conservative. WARNING... This is going to surprise most or you so fasten your seat belts!


Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were”

Free Dictionary.com

Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

I know not too many surprises there, but wait for it. Wait for it…

Liberalism is a political philosophy or world view founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

The term Liberal came into being during the French Revolution. Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition.

So you see Thomas Jefferson was a flaming Liberal in his day. All of the founding fathers were and they were so adamant that they were willing to risk their ‘…lives, fortune and honour…’ to set up a new government. They were the traitors of their time, reviled by most nations and their governments. So just this one time I say thank you God for giving us those traitors!

So what happened? Here is what: According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought.  Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on many countries (see Liberalism by country).
So when you here that the ‘Liberal Party’ in England or France wins an election try to remember that is a GOOD thing.

Enough with the back ground. What is today’s Conservative and Liberal. That is tougher to define than you might think. There is a gentleman that frequently posts to a Tea Party Face Book page that would have you believe that if you don’t agree with him and the Liberty Alliance, you’re a liberal. Or at the very least a RINO. The man has never been wrong. Even when called on something his answer is that the other person is a RINO or an out and out Liberal. I know a ‘Liberal’ that believes wholeheartedly the Democrat’s platform, but thinks Obama is a stupid criminal that should be shot after a fair trial and both Pelosi and Reid are just ignorant mouthpieces for that selfsame criminal. So you see it is possible to find areas of agreement with some of the people on the left. :)

I guess I am going to have to offer my definition of these two terms for good or ill. Here goes:
A Conservative is a person that believes the Constitution after a Christian God, is the supreme law of this land and should be followed under a strict constructionist discipline, but recognizes that even that amazing document has developed flaws. Flaws not in its basic principles, rather due to the evolution of society. The founding fathers could never for see where children could not, by government fiat, be punished and did not fall under the discretion of their parents. They could never for see such an anomaly as a professional politician, or a tyrannical president with sycophants ruling the Congress they so carefully set up as a separate power.

What is a Liberal, in my view? A Liberal is that person that believes that the Constitution is an old and antiquated document whose time has passed. It is time for the Government to step in and run things. We need the Government to take care of so many things. The raising of our children and oversee their education. Things like that just can’t be left in the hands of educators and, God forbid, the parents. Health care must be mandated whether the simple minded voter wants it or not. The Federal Government must delve into our personal lives in the name of our home land’s security. There can be no privacy. Who knows what plots may be fostered by the people if they continue to function without Government oversight?

Strong Language? Not really. Not if you are truly aware of the situation in this country today. And no, I don’t think I have put words into any liberal’s mouth. That is just the facts, Mam. OK So some of them won’t admit to them in public, but far too many live them.

As usual I have run out of self constraining space for this time. Hope you learned something or at least became involved enough to get angry with me. Or perhaps just nod and smile. Until next we meet.

How Media Bias Works

How Does Media Bias Work?

Do you think the media bias has any real effect on the voting public? Remember we are talking about a nation of citizens fifty percent of whom are politically ignorant and apathetic. They may see news blurbs on rare occasions, but they certainly don’t actually have any curiosity nor use any intelligence in what they read. They are headline readers. Now consider the headlines in the news on line, in the newspapers, and at the head of the hour on broadcasts. Consider these two headlines: “House harasses Hillary on the time she knew about the attacks. She asks ‘What difference does it make?’” And this one: Hillary screams ‘What difference does is make?’ when asked about Bengazi deaths. Which one is liberal and which is conservative news? Yeah. How about simple coverage? The point here is what makes them biased? The adjectives attached to a news story. They express an opinion and are not facts. Nor are they news. I watched the hearing that day. What I saw and heard was a Legislator questioning a probable hostile witness. He did not harass that witness; however he did ask pointed questions that were germane to the topic. Her answer was not screamed, it was stated in what may well have been dripping with sarcasm, in my opinion, :) but her voice was only slightly increased in volume. Definitely not ‘screamed’. So both sides practiced their own form of ‘biased reporting’. Oh, for the good old days when reporters reported the news.

Another form of ‘bias’ is demonstrated by the simple act of censorship. If you don’t report a story, no one can form an opinion. By the same token, if you don’t report the full story, you lead people to form an erroneous picture of events. Example? OK. Let’s look at the alleged terrorist Ahmed Abu Khattala, self proclaimed ‘Mastermind’ of the Benghazi Attack. The bias on the left reported that the federal government “…finally found …” the man. Great work, right? Hmmm there is one point that should be made here. Both Fox news and CNN interviewed him weeks before the government ‘found’ him. OK. Right wing Fox and the slowly moderating CNN did report that fact. (How many of you caught the bias in that last statement?) It still, to my knowledge, has not been mentioned by any other media outlet. If you don’t report it, your demographic won’t know about it. Remember those first impressions I mentioned?

These examples could go on forever. I hope you are starting to get a feel for how you are manipulated on a daily basis. The only cure I know of is a liberal dose of each side and the ability to think. Of course that presupposes that you do want to know the facts. I keep remembering the standby line from that old TV show, Dragnet, “Just the facts, Mam.” I do not deny the right and even the value of editorializing. When and where appropriate, I just disagree that a NEWS outlet should be doing it. It belongs on a show like the “View” or “Hannity” or even “Rush”. Not in the NEWS!

Comments or questions?


Nicholas County Tea Party Page.

When I do post it does seem to drive up the visits rather dramatically, but if I am the only one then it might be time to ask the question, is it  worth it?   Do you want me to close the page?  That is the question.



The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

Why I have maintained that attempting to impeach the man in the White House is down right stupid is really simple; however, the explanation takes a little time as it involves education. Try to remember that a failure to convict on the articles of impeachment will render it impossible to do so at a later date., for any reason.

Impeachment is not a finding, it is an indictment. After the indictment comes the trail. Impeaching BOH would be easy. The house presents a Articles of Impeachemnt, the votes are counted and he is impeached. Then comes the problem. The trial. That is conducted in the Senate only and the judge is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as mandated in our constitution. Even Dirty Harry cannot refuse to hold that trial and the president can’t use an executive order to make it go away. He must be tried if the house impeaches, BUT, and it is a big but, as things stand now the senate would never vote to convict. So we wait. Thank goodness some of the politicians are being smart. Not too many I agree, but there are some.

If we can take control of the senate with just a few votes over a simple majority there MIGHT be a chance. Here is the full process and some comments on that process:

In the Senate

  • The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

  • The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

  • A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as “prosecutors.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

  • The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

  • The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction. (note: 67 senators have to vote for conviction)

  • The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

  • The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Well, that’s up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

  • Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

  • Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

There are obvious land mines in this process. One of those is when the senate retires to consider it’s verdict. The prosecuting attorneys are excluded because they are not senators. How about the defense attorneys? Any defense attorney, selected by the president remember, that is a member of the senate is going to be part of that closed session. Just one reason it has never resulted in conviction. Then there is the seeming fact that one of the things a person serving a full term in the senate seems to misplace is his, or her, conscience. It just seems to get lost, somehow.

So what do we need to impeach and convict this usurper? It appears that we need about 56 conservatives to be elected to the senate. I don’t see that happening, do you? However let is be positive. The next session of congress is convened and Dirty Harry is relegated to senate minority leader. The conservatives and the swell of grass roots conservatism convinces a few more liberals that their interest in power is best served by getting BOH out of the White House. Just might happen. Sure can’t happen as things stand now.